Since I am active in RFA commenting/voting, here are my RFA criteria as they appear on the main RFA standards page:
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| themindset | 1000 main. 200 maintalk. 200 usertalk. 300 project. | 6 months | Civility, good faith, constructive edits. |
- Basically, I find these criteria to be fairly easy to attain.
- If a nominee falls short of only one of my criteria, and all else is in order, I will generally vote neutral. Failing two of my citeria will usually be an oppose.
- Note: Achieving my criteria will not automatically win my support, it is simply the minimum for me to consider supporting.
- A lot of people apply for adminship before they've been registered for more than 6 months, and a lot of others claim that the 6 month minimum many of us have set is too long. I do not agree. I've seen many users show up and rack up 3500 edits in under a month, and then vanish. I'd rather vote for someone who has made 2000 edits in 1 year. It shows consistency and commitment.